Excerpt: - - was not entitled to recover the amount in question in the same manner as if it was arrears of land revenue, 2. admittedly the amount sought to be recovered from the plaintiff was on account of deficiency in the price obtained on the re-auction of lac consequent to his failure to deposit the requisite part of his bid amount which had been accepted in the first auction. the deficiency sought to be recovered from the plaintiff cannot but be a loss suffered by the state in the second auction consequent to the failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract in the first auction. we do not see any good reasons to differ from the view taken by this court as aforesaid......p. was not entitled to recover the amount in question in the same manner as if it was arrears of land revenue,2. admittedly the amount sought to be recovered from the plaintiff was on account of deficiency in the price obtained on the re-auction of lac consequent to his failure to deposit the requisite part of his bid amount which had been accepted in the first auction. the plaintiff had challenged both his liability to pay the amount as also the mode of recovery of the same in the manner as if it was arrears of land revenue. the court, however, accepted that the amount could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue and accordingly decreed the claim of the plaintiff by issuing a necessary injunction restraining the state from recovering the same as such.3. the defendant-state has.....

Judgment:

Golvalker, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant-State of M. P. challenging the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff-respondent declaring that the State of M. P. was not entitled to recover the amount in question in the same manner as if it was arrears of land revenue,

2. Admittedly the amount sought to be recovered from the plaintiff was on account of deficiency in the price obtained on the re-auction of lac consequent to his failure to deposit the requisite part of his bid amount which had been accepted in the first auction. The plaintiff had challenged both his liability to pay the amount as also the mode of recovery of the same in the manner as if it was arrears of land revenue. The Court, however, accepted that the amount could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue and accordingly decreed the claim of the plaintiff by issuing a necessary injunction restraining the State from recovering the same as such.

3. The defendant-State has challenged that decision and urged that the amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. In our opinion, the submission has no substance. The deficiency sought to be recovered from the plaintiff cannot but be a loss suffered by the State in the second auction consequent to the failure on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract in the first auction. Such a loss could not come within the meaning of price of forest produce contemplated under Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act and thus would never be recovered as arrears of land revenue in the manner provided by that Act. The question whether such an amount could partake of the nature of the price of forest produce or would be merely a loss, in our opinion, so far as the facts in this case are concerned, stands concluded by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hukumchand v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 297 of 1958, D/- 4-5-1959 (MP) in which similar circumstances, as in the instant case, were available. It was ruled there that such an amount was a loss and could never be recovered as arrears of land revenue. This Division Bench case was later on followed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad v. D. Y. F. O. Rewa, M. P. No. 195 of 1960 D/- 2-2-1961 (MP). In the former case the views expressed in the case of Firm Goverdhandas Kailashnath v. Collector Mirzapur, AIR 1956 All 721 were followed. We do not see any good reasons to differ from the view taken by this Court as aforesaid. Accordingly we accept the finding of the lower Court and hold that the State of M. P. was not entitled to recover the deficiency of price from the plaintiff in the same manner as if it was arrears of land revenue. It could be recovered only by a regular Civil Suit.

4. The result, therefore, is that we uphold thedecree of the lower Court and dismiss this appealwith costs.